The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?)

On 03/06/2012 8:36 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 14:48:09 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:


[...]
That you believe in leprechauns, unicorns, tooth fairies, and even
prions.

Of that list, the only thing I've said I believe in is prions, which
is
consistent with current fact as accepted by the scientific community.

The existence of "prions" is accepted only by the people who are
funded for studying prions. There is no test for prions, and it's
anti-science rubbish to even suggest that a protein can become
infectious.

That drug companies only care about the health and welfare of their
customers, and not their profits and P/E ratios.

Never said it.

You continually deny the sordid history of drug companies, and have
nothing but positive things to say about them. You often sound like
you're a paid spokesman for Pfizer, et al.

That doctors, scientists and everyone else who wears a white smock,
just like the Koran says, speak the word of Allah, and should never be
questioned.

Never said it. Never mentioned religion. Are you equally
bigotted against Muslims? Must be, otherwise why are you going there?

1. Because I wanted to. 2. It's a good analogy.

What do Muslims have to do with any of this?

Because the Koran is considered infallible, according to Islam; and to
you, doctors, scientists, and drug companies are infallible.

a·nal·o·gy

1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a
comparison may be based

Got it now?

That you attended Troll School for almost 10 years, and graduated
Minime Cum Laude.

That everyone should have gastric bypass surgery, so they can
"mysteriously" eat all the pizza they want.

Never said that or anything even close, liar.

You're constantly praising the merits of gastric bypass surgery, while
at the same time insisting that low-carb dieting can't produce the
same results, even though I've given you links to studies that suggest
they can. Even other kinds of diet and lifestyle change probably work,
too.

That consensus always trumps The Scientific Method, and that doctors
and scientists should just get together every summer in Las Vegas and
vote on the merits of various theories and hypothesies.

Never said that either.

You are totally close-minded to any ideas that do not conform to the
conventional wisdom, without even mentioning how often conventional
wisdom has been proven wrong throughout history.

That's the sign of a stupid mind.

That it's a waste of time to read the list of ingredients on food
packages because companies like Coca Cola, Pepsi, Kellogg's, General
Mills, ADM, Cargill, etc., would never add anything to their foods
that was bad for our health.

Never said that either.

You've implied that people shouldn't be concerned about the list of
ingredients on fast foods like KFC, supposedly because people are
living longer today than in the past.

That you co-starred in the blockbuster movie "Dumb& Dumber," along
with James Warren.

That you never bother to read actual scientific studies, relying
instead on advertisements, PR releases, and Al Sharpton on MSNBC.

Curious that you'd drag Al Sharpton into this.

Why? He seems exactly like the kind of person that you would look to
for guidance on the issues.

First AIDS victims,
then Muslims, now Al Sharpton. Who else is on your hate list?

Aah. You should apply for a job on MSNBC. You sound just like the
typical race-baiting MSNBC anchor. If anyone disagrees with them, they
must be "haters." It's a tool that assholes like you use to prevent
any actual discussion.

[...]
"What's so "mysterious" about them (the reversal of diabetes)?
They appear to be the same effects seen from low-carb diets.
There's nothing "mysterious" about it. "

Yes, exactly!

So, make up your mind.

I just did. And for the umpteenth time.

Now when these effects occur on people who are NOT shown
to be eating a LC diet,

And when will *that* study be forthcoming?

It's already been done

Then put up or shut up!

Asshole

[...]
By default, I don't believe in anything that's "mysterious."

I believe in The Scientific Method.

Anytime someone has to rely on some "mysterious effect" (your words,
not mine) to explain his hypothesis, it becomes paranormal
navel-gazing, not science.

The researchers are not relying on any mysterious effect to explain
anything.

No, you are!

They have noted a mysterious effect and are doing research
to figure out what is going on.

Yes, "Keep that funding rolling in, man, we'll get it one day! We
promise!

I believe carb restriction cures a lot of ails, you bet, and the
science backs me up on that. But I have never said that it cures
"anything."
You made the specific claim that it's responsible for the reversal of
diabetes seen in bariatric surgery patients. Even though there is
no evidence those patients are on LC.

And there's no evidence they aren't!

See, again, this is not how it works.

The literature is littered with studies that show low-carb eating can
reverse diabetes (which I've provided links to), and HOW it goes about
it.

But for gastric bypass surgery? Not so much.

It's just too damn "mysterious."

But they're still working on it!

{...]
But you're not just speaking out, you're taking this stuff far too
personally. It's almost as if you're obsessed with it.

If I'm obsessed, what about you?

I'm rebutting your silly and repetitious postings.

It's a "cause and effect" ("causality") thing.

Look it up.

But it does give everyone an insight into the real bigot you are.
It shows you hold people with AIDS in contempt, otherwise it
would have no place in the discussion.

I hold *you* in contempt, whether you have AIDS or not. Period.

Not that you'd know the difference.

I do know the difference.

Put up or shut up!

And the fact that you've dragged Muslims
and Al Sharpton into it shows where you're coming from.

I reserve the right to drag anyone and anything I want into it.

It's been
obvious to me for some time. By now it should be obvious to everyone.
You're a bigot.

Yes! I hate stupid assholes!

For example,
you claimed that it's responsible for the mysterious reversal
in diabetes seen in bariatric surgery patients.

I'll write you a check for $1000 if you can find anywhere I've ever
said anything like those words.

Dogman in his own words:

"What's so "mysterious" about them?
"They appear to be the same effects seen from low-carb diets."
"There's nothing "mysterious" about it."
"And there's nothing "mysterious" about it."

Me:
"In short, while the 600 calorie diet could be part
of what is going on in the first weeks, it doesn't explain
the long term reversal of diabetes.

Dogman:
"Low-carb explains it."

When can I expect that check?

As soon as you earn it, which you obviously haven't!

Wow, there's a surprise.

It was no surprise to me, because I know what I said.

But with your atrocious reading comprehension, you'll probably never
"get it."

THERE'S NOTHING MYSTERIOUS ABOUT THE WAY LOW-CARB DIETS WORK!

Who here has claimed that there was anything mysterious about LC?

That was a simple declarative sentence.

I'm having great difficulty getting you to understand anything more
difficult that, so...

LOW-CARB DIETS CAN PRODUCE THE SAME EFFECTS THAT GASTRIC BYPASS
SURGERY DOES!

Even if that's true,

It is.

it does not show how gastric surgery patients who
are not on LC have a reversal of diabetes.

Nor are there any studies to prove it.

Also, from the diabetics
here over the years, it seems any reversal of diabetes does not
happen with days.

It certainly won't on a typical ADA-recommended diet.

But carb restriction, especially when coupled with calorie
restriction, can. Will it do that for everyone? Probably not.

There's nothing "mysterious" about how low-carb eating works. It's
been well-documented in the literature for decades. Yes, I do think it
offers an explanation of why GB patients lose weight (at least as
strong an explanation as that it's something "mysterious" and can't
even be explained!),

Just another attempt at redirection. The issue was never that LC
was mysterious.

My point is, why do you beleieve so strongly in something you call
"mysterious" when you have something that's not mysterious at all to
believe in?

I don't believe in something mysterious.

Yes you do. You believe in the mysterious effects of gastric bypass
surgery, even though no one can explain it. You've probably said it a
dozen times by now.

See: Ockham's Razor.

and that I think anyone who is contemplating GB
surgery should try a very low carb diet FIRST. That's what I've said,
that's what Doug said, and only a nutjob like you would disagree with
any of that.

No, dear, you've said a LOT more than just that. And you can't
show us where I ever said that anyone contemplating surgery should
not try LC or any other diet first. I'm all in favor of that.

Then why are you arguing with Doug and I???

I'm not arguing with Doug. I'm arguing with
you and it has nothing to do with the above. Capiche?

Doug has said pretty much the same thing, so you're arguing with him
whether you know it or not.

Sure, anyone that doesn't agree with your nonsense is a
troll. Have you seen a single person here agree with your
AIDS lunacy?

Frankly, I've never seen anyone disagree with it, either.

That's a lie. James Warren disagreed with your AIDS denialist
nonsense.

James doubts it (but then he doubts everything!), but he doesn't know
anything about it.

I know that strong links have been established between HIV and AIDS. Also,
when I compare the arguments and data produced by you and Trader, I conclude
that Trader has the much better of it. I try to be objective.

You last couple of posts consists of very strained attempts to create straw men
to attack. They were rather pathetic really.


So did Doug.

Doug appears to be smart enough to hedge his bet, by saying he would
try to avoid the risk factors noted by Duesberg.

Asshole.



--
-jw

On Jun 3, 7:36*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 14:48:09 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]

That you believe in leprechauns, unicorns, tooth fairies, and even
prions.

Of that list, the only thing I've said I believe in is prions, which
is
consistent with current fact as accepted by the scientific community.

The existence of "prions" is accepted only by the people who are
funded for studying prions. There is no test for prions, and it's
anti-science rubbish to even suggest that a protein can become
infectious.

That drug companies only care about the health and welfare of their
customers, and not their profits and P/E ratios.
Never said it.

You continually deny the sordid history of drug companies, and have
nothing but positive things to say about them. You often sound like
you're a paid spokesman for Pfizer, et al.


Another lie. I never denied anything. I only said your citing of
one
editorial about a specific situation with one drug company doesn't
prove much of anything. It's one editorial writer's opinion. I don't
know the full story behind that incident. I have not heard the FDA's
side of the story, the drug company's side, etc. And based on
how I see you cobble together anything and try to twist it into
"fact", I'm now highly suspicous of anything you post.

And I've said that overall I think drug companies and the scientific
and medical community have done a very good job. Sure, they
have gotten some things wrong. They aren't perfect. But I don't
condemn them all, but then turn around and very selectively
cherry-pick among them to support your own preconceived
theories.

You don't like the white coats and drug companies? Next time
you need an operation or life saving drug, call a hippie.




That everyone should have gastric bypass surgery, so they can
"mysteriously" eat all the pizza they want.

Never said that or anything even close, liar.

You're constantly praising the merits of gastric bypass surgery, while
at the same time insisting that low-carb dieting can't produce the
same results, even though I've given you links to studies that suggest
they can. Even other kinds of diet and lifestyle change probably work,
too.


One more time. The specific and narrow issue that was being
discussed was that a mysterious reversal in diabetes is seen in
bariatric surgery patients. Researchers don't know what is causing
it. YOU immediately claimed that there is nothing mysterious, that
it is caused by LC, end of story. Only problem is the reversal is
seen
at 1, 2, 10 years after surgery when there is no reason to believe
that
most or any of these patients are even on LC. Most have lost a lot
of weight, but remain overweight or mildly obese. Yet the diabetes is
gone. Now it would indeed be a LC miracle if that is what's
completely
reversed the diabetes, when the patients are not even on LC.

An yes, I showed you a study that shows bariatric surgery has a
very high success rate in keeping weight off, while trying diets on
these patients does
not. Almost everyone I've ever encountered in this group over the
years acknowledges that the long term success rate of getting
people to keep weight off through diet is poor. I'm not saying
bariatric surgery does not have serious risks and side effects or
that it should not be a last resort.





That consensus always trumps The Scientific Method, and that doctors
and scientists should just get together every summer in Las Vegas and
vote on the merits of various theories and hypothesies.

Never said that either.

You are totally close-minded to any ideas that do not conform to the
conventional wisdom, without even mentioning how often conventional
wisdom has been proven wrong throughout history.

That's the sign of a stupid mind.

I look at the available evidence and it's credibility. And in the
case of
much of what you believe in, eg that HIV is harmless and does not
cause AIDS, the evidence that you are wrong is overwhelming. You
want to talk about who has a basic understanding of the facts?
You claimed a few posts ago that heterosexuals are an insignificant
component of AIDS in the USA. The actual data shows that they
now account for one third of all new diagnosis and 17% of the total
cases to date. Now, how could you fairly evaluate Duesburg,
Montagnier, or anyone else's theories if you're ignorant of one of the
most
basic facts about the disease?







That you co-starred in the blockbuster movie "Dumb & Dumber," along
with James Warren.
That you never bother to read actual scientific studies, relying
instead on advertisements, PR releases, and Al Sharpton on MSNBC.

Curious that you'd drag Al Sharpton into this.

Why? *He seems exactly like the kind of person that you would look to
for guidance on the issues.

First AIDS victims,
then Muslims, now Al Sharpton. * Who else is on your hate list?

Aah. You should apply for a job on MSNBC. You sound just like the
typical race-baiting MSNBC anchor. If anyone disagrees with them, they
must be "haters." It's a tool that assholes like you use to prevent
any actual discussion.


Yes, I find it VERY curious that you dragged Al Sharpton into this.
MSNBC too, as if they had anything to do with the discussion.
But it does help show how easily you go off track.


Anytime someone has to rely on some "mysterious effect" (your words,
not mine) to explain his hypothesis, it becomes paranormal
navel-gazing, not science.
The researchers are not relying on any mysterious effect to explain
anything.

No, you are!

One more time. Neither I nor James ever explained these mysterious
effects. James just pointed them out. At which point, YOU, shooting
off without the facts, quickly proclaimed there was no mystery because
the effects are just due to LC. YOU did the explaining, not us.
Capiche? Only problem is there is no evidence the patients are on LC
at 1, 2, 10 years after surgery when the diabetes is still gone.
Capiche?

How many more times do you need to get demolished like this?




They have noted a mysterious effect and are doing research
to figure out what is going on.

Yes, "Keep that funding rolling in, man, we'll get it one day! *We
promise!


You claim that James and I are the ones with closed minds?
And here you imply that the medical research to find out what's
going on is a joke.



The literature is littered with studies that show low-carb eating can
reverse diabetes (which I've provided links to), and HOW it goes about
it.

Show us the one where it works on people who aren't even
on it, ie the bariatric patients at 1, 2, 10 years. THAT is the
issue, not this cannard.





But for gastric bypass surgery? *Not so much.

A blatant lie. It's been demonstrated that these patients have
a very high rate of diabetes reversal. Initially you did not argue
that. You just told us it had to be due to LC. Now you want to
further discredit yourself by denying the effect?




It's just too damn "mysterious."

But they're still working on it!

{...]

But you're not just speaking out, you're taking this stuff far too
personally. *It's almost as if you're obsessed with it.

If I'm obsessed, what about you?

I'm rebutting your silly and repetitious postings.

It's a "cause and effect" *("causality") thing.


Oh, I see. When I do that, it's because I have AIDS.
When you do it, it's perfectly cool. Interesting how fair you
are in evaluating things.





Look it up.

And the fact that you've dragged Muslims
and Al Sharpton into it shows where you're coming from.

I reserve the right to drag anyone and anything I want into it.


Feel free to continue to do so and win more respect....



For example,
you claimed that it's responsible for the mysterious reversal
in diabetes seen in bariatric surgery patients.

I'll write you a check for $1000 if you can find anywhere I've ever
said anything like those words.

Dogman in his own words:

"What's so "mysterious" about them?
"They appear to be the same effects seen from low-carb diets. "
"There's nothing "mysterious" about it. "
"And there's nothing "mysterious" about it. "

Me:
"In short, while the 600 calorie diet could be part
of what is going on in the first weeks, it doesn't explain
the long term reversal of diabetes.

Dogman:
"Low-carb explains it. "

When can I expect that check?

As soon as you earn it, which you obviously haven't!
Wow, there's a surprise.

It was no surprise to me, because I know what I said.

But with your atrocious reading comprehension, you'll probably never
"get it."

THERE'S NOTHING MYSTERIOUS ABOUT THE WAY LOW-CARB DIETS WORK!

Who here has claimed that there was anything mysterious about LC?

That was a simple declarative sentence.

Which of course has nothing to do whatever, because the "mystery"
was not about LC diets. Geez...





I'm having great difficulty getting you to understand anything more
difficult that, so...

LOW-CARB DIETS CAN PRODUCE THE SAME EFFECTS THAT GASTRIC BYPASS
SURGERY DOES!

Even if that's true,

It is.

it does not show how gastric surgery patients who
are not on LC have a reversal of diabetes.

Nor are there any studies to prove it.

Also, from the diabetics
here over the years, it seems any reversal of diabetes does not
happen with days.

It certainly won't on a typical ADA-recommended diet.


There you go again. I said from the diabetics here, in this
newsgroup.
Yet you go off on the ADA diet. Are you just incapable of following
a discussion? The diabetics here that I'm talking
about are the ones on LC.
I've seen them report being able to take less medication or go off
medication all together. But I believe that in the cases I recall
that
did not happen within days. It happened over a much longer period.
Perhaps some of them will weigh in on this.




I'm not arguing with Doug. *I'm arguing with
you and it has nothing to do with the above. *Capiche?

Doug has said pretty much the same thing, so you're arguing with him
whether you know it or not.



Please, don't drag Doug down into the personal rat-hole that you've
created.

On 6/4/2012 10:10 AM, wrote:
On Jun 3, 7:36 pm, wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 14:48:09 -0700 (PDT), "

wrote:

[...]

That you believe in leprechauns, unicorns, tooth fairies, and even
prions.

Of that list, the only thing I've said I believe in is prions, which
is
consistent with current fact as accepted by the scientific community.

The existence of "prions" is accepted only by the people who are
funded for studying prions. There is no test for prions, and it's
anti-science rubbish to even suggest that a protein can become
infectious.

That drug companies only care about the health and welfare of their
customers, and not their profits and P/E ratios.
Never said it.

You continually deny the sordid history of drug companies, and have
nothing but positive things to say about them. You often sound like
you're a paid spokesman for Pfizer, et al.


Another lie. I never denied anything. I only said your citing of
one
editorial about a specific situation with one drug company doesn't
prove much of anything. It's one editorial writer's opinion. I don't
know the full story behind that incident. I have not heard the FDA's
side of the story, the drug company's side, etc. And based on
how I see you cobble together anything and try to twist it into
"fact", I'm now highly suspicous of anything you post.

And I've said that overall I think drug companies and the scientific
and medical community have done a very good job. Sure, they
have gotten some things wrong. They aren't perfect. But I don't
condemn them all, but then turn around and very selectively
cherry-pick among them to support your own preconceived
theories.

You don't like the white coats and drug companies? Next time
you need an operation or life saving drug, call a hippie.




That everyone should have gastric bypass surgery, so they can
"mysteriously" eat all the pizza they want.

Never said that or anything even close, liar.

You're constantly praising the merits of gastric bypass surgery, while
at the same time insisting that low-carb dieting can't produce the
same results, even though I've given you links to studies that suggest
they can. Even other kinds of diet and lifestyle change probably work,
too.


One more time. The specific and narrow issue that was being
discussed was that a mysterious reversal in diabetes is seen in
bariatric surgery patients. Researchers don't know what is causing
it. YOU immediately claimed that there is nothing mysterious, that
it is caused by LC, end of story. Only problem is the reversal is
seen
at 1, 2, 10 years after surgery when there is no reason to believe
that
most or any of these patients are even on LC. Most have lost a lot
of weight, but remain overweight or mildly obese. Yet the diabetes is
gone. Now it would indeed be a LC miracle if that is what's
completely
reversed the diabetes, when the patients are not even on LC.

An yes, I showed you a study that shows bariatric surgery has a
very high success rate in keeping weight off, while trying diets on
these patients does
not. Almost everyone I've ever encountered in this group over the
years acknowledges that the long term success rate of getting
people to keep weight off through diet is poor. I'm not saying
bariatric surgery does not have serious risks and side effects or
that it should not be a last resort.





That consensus always trumps The Scientific Method, and that doctors
and scientists should just get together every summer in Las Vegas and
vote on the merits of various theories and hypothesies.

Never said that either.

You are totally close-minded to any ideas that do not conform to the
conventional wisdom, without even mentioning how often conventional
wisdom has been proven wrong throughout history.

That's the sign of a stupid mind.

I look at the available evidence and it's credibility. And in the
case of
much of what you believe in, eg that HIV is harmless and does not
cause AIDS, the evidence that you are wrong is overwhelming. You
want to talk about who has a basic understanding of the facts?
You claimed a few posts ago that heterosexuals are an insignificant
component of AIDS in the USA. The actual data shows that they
now account for one third of all new diagnosis and 17% of the total
cases to date. Now, how could you fairly evaluate Duesburg,
Montagnier, or anyone else's theories if you're ignorant of one of the
most
basic facts about the disease?







That you co-starred in the blockbuster movie "Dumb& Dumber," along
with James Warren.
That you never bother to read actual scientific studies, relying
instead on advertisements, PR releases, and Al Sharpton on MSNBC.

Curious that you'd drag Al Sharpton into this.

Why? He seems exactly like the kind of person that you would look to
for guidance on the issues.

First AIDS victims,
then Muslims, now Al Sharpton. Who else is on your hate list?

Aah. You should apply for a job on MSNBC. You sound just like the
typical race-baiting MSNBC anchor. If anyone disagrees with them, they
must be "haters." It's a tool that assholes like you use to prevent
any actual discussion.


Yes, I find it VERY curious that you dragged Al Sharpton into this.
MSNBC too, as if they had anything to do with the discussion.
But it does help show how easily you go off track.


Anytime someone has to rely on some "mysterious effect" (your words,
not mine) to explain his hypothesis, it becomes paranormal
navel-gazing, not science.
The researchers are not relying on any mysterious effect to explain
anything.

No, you are!

One more time. Neither I nor James ever explained these mysterious
effects. James just pointed them out. At which point, YOU, shooting
off without the facts, quickly proclaimed there was no mystery because
the effects are just due to LC. YOU did the explaining, not us.
Capiche? Only problem is there is no evidence the patients are on LC
at 1, 2, 10 years after surgery when the diabetes is still gone.
Capiche?

How many more times do you need to get demolished like this?




They have noted a mysterious effect and are doing research
to figure out what is going on.

Yes, "Keep that funding rolling in, man, we'll get it one day! We
promise!


You claim that James and I are the ones with closed minds?
And here you imply that the medical research to find out what's
going on is a joke.



The literature is littered with studies that show low-carb eating can
reverse diabetes (which I've provided links to), and HOW it goes about
it.

Show us the one where it works on people who aren't even
on it, ie the bariatric patients at 1, 2, 10 years. THAT is the
issue, not this cannard.





But for gastric bypass surgery? Not so much.

A blatant lie. It's been demonstrated that these patients have
a very high rate of diabetes reversal. Initially you did not argue
that. You just told us it had to be due to LC. Now you want to
further discredit yourself by denying the effect?




It's just too damn "mysterious."

But they're still working on it!

{...]

But you're not just speaking out, you're taking this stuff far too
personally. It's almost as if you're obsessed with it.

If I'm obsessed, what about you?

I'm rebutting your silly and repetitious postings.

It's a "cause and effect" ("causality") thing.


Oh, I see. When I do that, it's because I have AIDS.
When you do it, it's perfectly cool. Interesting how fair you
are in evaluating things.





Look it up.

And the fact that you've dragged Muslims
and Al Sharpton into it shows where you're coming from.

I reserve the right to drag anyone and anything I want into it.


Feel free to continue to do so and win more respect....



For example,
you claimed that it's responsible for the mysterious reversal
in diabetes seen in bariatric surgery patients.

I'll write you a check for $1000 if you can find anywhere I've ever
said anything like those words.

Dogman in his own words:

"What's so "mysterious" about them?
"They appear to be the same effects seen from low-carb diets."
"There's nothing "mysterious" about it."
"And there's nothing "mysterious" about it."

Me:
"In short, while the 600 calorie diet could be part
of what is going on in the first weeks, it doesn't explain
the long term reversal of diabetes.

Dogman:
"Low-carb explains it."

When can I expect that check?

As soon as you earn it, which you obviously haven't!
Wow, there's a surprise.

It was no surprise to me, because I know what I said.

But with your atrocious reading comprehension, you'll probably never
"get it."

THERE'S NOTHING MYSTERIOUS ABOUT THE WAY LOW-CARB DIETS WORK!

Who here has claimed that there was anything mysterious about LC?

That was a simple declarative sentence.

Which of course has nothing to do whatever, because the "mystery"
was not about LC diets. Geez...





I'm having great difficulty getting you to understand anything more
difficult that, so...

LOW-CARB DIETS CAN PRODUCE THE SAME EFFECTS THAT GASTRIC BYPASS
SURGERY DOES!

Even if that's true,

It is.

it does not show how gastric surgery patients who
are not on LC have a reversal of diabetes.

Nor are there any studies to prove it.

Also, from the diabetics
here over the years, it seems any reversal of diabetes does not
happen with days.

It certainly won't on a typical ADA-recommended diet.


There you go again. I said from the diabetics here, in this
newsgroup.
Yet you go off on the ADA diet. Are you just incapable of following
a discussion? The diabetics here that I'm talking
about are the ones on LC.
I've seen them report being able to take less medication or go off
medication all together. But I believe that in the cases I recall
that
did not happen within days. It happened over a much longer period.
Perhaps some of them will weigh in on this.

I was on three diabetes drugs and control was still not as good as
I wanted. A few months after starting LC I dropped a drug and am
considering reducing another because control is very good.

The very high spikes I used to have two hours after eating disappeared
almost immediately, replaced with only modest elevations.





I'm not arguing with Doug. I'm arguing with
you and it has nothing to do with the above. Capiche?

Doug has said pretty much the same thing, so you're arguing with him
whether you know it or not.



Please, don't drag Doug down into the personal rat-hole that you've
created.

On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 06:10:05 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
That drug companies only care about the health and welfare of their
customers, and not their profits and P/E ratios.
Never said it.

You continually deny the sordid history of drug companies, and have
nothing but positive things to say about them. You often sound like
you're a paid spokesman for Pfizer, et al.


Another lie. I never denied anything. I only said your citing of
one
editorial about a specific situation with one drug company doesn't
prove much of anything. It's one editorial writer's opinion. I don't
know the full story behind that incident. I have not heard the FDA's
side of the story, the drug company's side, etc.

Yes you did! But you couldn't understand them! That's why you
shouldn't read scientific studies, scientific papers, PR releases, or
even Marvel comic books.

You're just too stupid.

That everyone should have gastric bypass surgery, so they can
"mysteriously" eat all the pizza they want.

Never said that or anything even close, liar.

You're constantly praising the merits of gastric bypass surgery, while
at the same time insisting that low-carb dieting can't produce the
same results, even though I've given you links to studies that suggest
they can. Even other kinds of diet and lifestyle change probably work,
too.

One more time. The specific and narrow issue that was being
discussed was that a mysterious reversal in diabetes is seen in
bariatric surgery patients. Researchers don't know what is causing
it.

When they get done "researching" it, come back and let us know how it
all worked out! Until that happens, I'm not believing in anything
"mysterious," including "prions."


That consensus always trumps The Scientific Method, and that doctors
and scientists should just get together every summer in Las Vegas and
vote on the merits of various theories and hypothesies.

Never said that either.

You are totally close-minded to any ideas that do not conform to the
conventional wisdom, without even mentioning how often conventional
wisdom has been proven wrong throughout history.

That's the sign of a stupid mind.

I look at the available evidence and it's credibility.

You don't understand what The Scientific Method is, and that's what
gives a theory, a hypothesis, its credibility. Not how many people
agree with it, not how many awards a person has received, but if it
adheres to The Scientific Method.

PERIOD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viaDa43WiLc

When and if you ever figure that out, then and only then will you make
any progress.

[...]
Aah. You should apply for a job on MSNBC. You sound just like the
typical race-baiting MSNBC anchor. If anyone disagrees with them, they
must be "haters." It's a tool that assholes like you use to prevent
any actual discussion.

Yes, I find it VERY curious that you dragged Al Sharpton into this.
MSNBC too, as if they had anything to do with the discussion.
But it does help show how easily you go off track.

It's not "off-track," it's just that you don't understand what an
analogy.

a·nal·o·gy

1.a similarity between like features of two things, on which a
comparison may be based

See how that works?

No? That figures.

Because you're the stupidest man I've ever encountered on Usenet.

Anytime someone has to rely on some "mysterious effect" (your words,
not mine) to explain his hypothesis, it becomes paranormal
navel-gazing, not science.
The researchers are not relying on any mysterious effect to explain
anything.

No, you are!

One more time. Neither I nor James ever explained these mysterious
effects. James just pointed them out.

James couldn't point out which direction his ass was aiming, but
you're the one who keeps bringing them up. And the reason you keep
bringing them up is because that's all you have to explain your claim.
It has to be something "mysterious," because you refuse to allow that
the person's diet, or lifestyle change, may have something to do with
it.

No, it doesn't have to be "mysterious," it could be the diet, and/or
and lifestyle changes, and these are easily explainable by SCIENCE.

So that's the way I'm leaning until that "mystery" is solved.

See: Ockham's Razor.

They have noted a mysterious effect and are doing research
to figure out what is going on.

Yes, "Keep that funding rolling in, man, we'll get it one day! *We
promise!

You claim that James and I are the ones with closed minds?

Besides just being stupid? Yes!

And here you imply that the medical research to find out what's
going on is a joke.

Yes, much of science is a joke. That's precisely my point!

Very good!

Now, if you'll just go back to school and get your GED...

But for gastric bypass surgery? *Not so much.

A blatant lie. It's been demonstrated that these patients have
a very high rate of diabetes reversal.

Compared to what? Compared to a control group that received no
treatment, were not even put on a diet, etc? BFD.

It's just too damn "mysterious."

But they're still working on it!

{...]

But you're not just speaking out, you're taking this stuff far too
personally. *It's almost as if you're obsessed with it.

If I'm obsessed, what about you?

I'm rebutting your silly and repetitious postings.

It's a "cause and effect" *("causality") thing.

Oh, I see. When I do that, it's because I have AIDS.

Yes, that's one possibility.

When you do it, it's perfectly cool. Interesting how fair you
are in evaluating things.

Look, little man, as long as you want to keep insulting me about what
I believe in, especially since what I believe in is based on The
Scientific Method, and not "mysterious" crap, I'm going to keep
responding in kind.

And if you don't like it? Good luck with that.

Look it up.

And the fact that you've dragged Muslims
and Al Sharpton into it shows where you're coming from.

I reserve the right to drag anyone and anything I want into it.

Feel free to continue to do so and win more respect....

Not that I need your permission, but...

[...]
THERE'S NOTHING MYSTERIOUS ABOUT THE WAY LOW-CARB DIETS WORK!

Who here has claimed that there was anything mysterious about LC?

That was a simple declarative sentence.

Which of course has nothing to do whatever, because the "mystery"
was not about LC diets. Geez...

From the Latin, it means "to make clear."

Which I always try to do, especially when I'm conversing with
simpletons.

But sometimes it doesn't work even then.

Sometimes there's just no there, there.

[...]
Also, from the diabetics
here over the years, it seems any reversal of diabetes does not
happen with days.

It certainly won't on a typical ADA-recommended diet.


There you go again. I said from the diabetics here, in this
newsgroup.
Yet you go off on the ADA diet.

Yes, because it's on the ADA diet that these people probably got
diabetes in the first place.

Which is essentially a HIGH-carb, low fat diet.

But a LOW-carb diet can reverse diabetes in "a matter of days," and
I've given you cites that prove it.

I'm not arguing with Doug. *I'm arguing with
you and it has nothing to do with the above. *Capiche?

Doug has said pretty much the same thing, so you're arguing with him
whether you know it or not.

Please, don't drag Doug down into the personal rat-hole that you've
created.

Do you own license to Doug's name?

No?

I didn't think so.

So I'll drag Doug's name anywhere I want, thankyouverymuch.

Asshole.


--
Dogman

"I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty
about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman

James Warren wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Each of the popular plans has at least one point where it says to do
something not obvious. That's because the author(s) of that plan spent
a decade or more experimenting on how to improve past the point you'd
get doing the obvious. "Reduce total carbs. You'll lose." If that
were it there would be no need for the many books on the topic. Human
bodies are not that simple. We are not "calories in equals calories
out" mechanical engines.

Pick a plan and analyze it. You'll find items that are not obvious.
Try them anyways and you'll discover they work.

How was it discovered that they work? By anecdotes? By controlled studies?

Depending on the plan at least tabular data. Dr Atkins tried to get his
tabular data published and was refused because it was not double blind.
You have stated that you will accept nothing less than double blind
studies. As such I suspect you will call any amount of tabluar data
anecodotal.

It matters which.

To you. To others the quality of the data matters but the content of
the data matters as well. Is there any harm in "follow the directions"
where the directions are in a book that has sold millions and has been
in use for over a decade? To me the biggest downside would be "It
failed to work any better than the obvious".

What can be known is the non-obvious parts gave results successful
enough for an person to notice them and study the field long enough to
become established as an expert, publish a book, and for the book to
survive the culling process to become well known.

Compare the results
against people who only did the obvious and you'll find you did better.
Those non-obvious bits are the fruit of that decade plus of work each
other put in while developing their plan before they wrote their book.
Expertise matters when it comes to results.

Or don't because you're happy with the results of doing the obvious so
you don't care if there are optimizations available for having read one
of the plans.

My results were pretty good but not as good as I had hoped.

How much motivation do you have to acheive better results? Only you can
answer that. It tells how much motivation you have to try one of the
well known plans complete with the parts that are not obvious. Was your
success good enough that your hopes were unrealistic? That's extremely
common. Are you motivated enough to start trying the non-obvious parts?

James Warren wrote:

Compare the results
against people who only did the obvious and you'll find you did better.
Those non-obvious bits are the fruit of that decade plus of work each
other put in while developing their plan before they wrote their book.
Expertise matters when it comes to results.

Or don't because you're happy with the results of doing the obvious so
you don't care if there are optimizations available for having read one
of the plans.

My results were pretty good but not as good as I had hoped.

I will point out something else -

Following the directions more strictly does not equal staying strictly
lower in carbs or staying in the early phases. At most the directions
allow that to happen. Not the same thing as following the core of the
directions simply because it's allowed. Doing what's allowed is taking
an optional branch of the process not following the core of the
directions. Consider that nearly every plan out there has a starting
phase that lasts 2 weeks sometimes 1 week then moves on to the next
phase.

Following the directions more strictly equals moving on to the next
phase on day 15. Doing low carb more strictly equals staying low
longer. Not the same thing. In this discussion I am recommending
following the directions more strictly to leverage the 10+ years of
effect by the author(s) of the book(s).

On 6/4/2012 12:47 PM, Dogman wrote:
On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 06:10:05 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

[...]
That drug companies only care about the health and welfare of their
customers, and not their profits and P/E ratios.
Never said it.

You continually deny the sordid history of drug companies, and have
nothing but positive things to say about them. You often sound like
you're a paid spokesman for Pfizer, et al.


Another lie. I never denied anything. I only said your citing of
one
editorial about a specific situation with one drug company doesn't
prove much of anything. It's one editorial writer's opinion. I don't
know the full story behind that incident. I have not heard the FDA's
side of the story, the drug company's side, etc.

Yes you did! But you couldn't understand them! That's why you
shouldn't read scientific studies, scientific papers, PR releases, or
even Marvel comic books.

You're just too stupid.

That everyone should have gastric bypass surgery, so they can
"mysteriously" eat all the pizza they want.

Never said that or anything even close, liar.

You're constantly praising the merits of gastric bypass surgery, while
at the same time insisting that low-carb dieting can't produce the
same results, even though I've given you links to studies that suggest
they can. Even other kinds of diet and lifestyle change probably work,
too.

One more time. The specific and narrow issue that was being
discussed was that a mysterious reversal in diabetes is seen in
bariatric surgery patients. Researchers don't know what is causing
it.

When they get done "researching" it, come back and let us know how it
all worked out! Until that happens, I'm not believing in anything
"mysterious," including "prions."


That consensus always trumps The Scientific Method, and that doctors
and scientists should just get together every summer in Las Vegas and
vote on the merits of various theories and hypothesies.

Never said that either.

You are totally close-minded to any ideas that do not conform to the
conventional wisdom, without even mentioning how often conventional
wisdom has been proven wrong throughout history.

That's the sign of a stupid mind.

I look at the available evidence and it's credibility.

You don't understand what The Scientific Method is, and that's what
gives a theory, a hypothesis, its credibility. Not how many people
agree with it, not how many awards a person has received, but if it
adheres to The Scientific Method.

PERIOD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viaDa43WiLc

When and if you ever figure that out, then and only then will you make
any progress.

[...]
Aah. You should apply for a job on MSNBC. You sound just like the
typical race-baiting MSNBC anchor. If anyone disagrees with them, they
must be "haters." It's a tool that assholes like you use to prevent
any actual discussion.

Yes, I find it VERY curious that you dragged Al Sharpton into this.
MSNBC too, as if they had anything to do with the discussion.
But it does help show how easily you go off track.

It's not "off-track," it's just that you don't understand what an
analogy.

a·nal·o·gy

1.a similarity between like features of two things, on which a
comparison may be based

See how that works?

No? That figures.

Because you're the stupidest man I've ever encountered on Usenet.

Anytime someone has to rely on some "mysterious effect" (your words,
not mine) to explain his hypothesis, it becomes paranormal
navel-gazing, not science.
The researchers are not relying on any mysterious effect to explain
anything.

No, you are!

One more time. Neither I nor James ever explained these mysterious
effects. James just pointed them out.

James couldn't point out which direction his ass was aiming, but
you're the one who keeps bringing them up. And the reason you keep
bringing them up is because that's all you have to explain your claim.
It has to be something "mysterious," because you refuse to allow that
the person's diet, or lifestyle change, may have something to do with
it.

Well it might not be all that mysterious. They observed large changes
in hormone levels post surgery presumable due to part of the stomach
and duodenum being bypassed. If these changes could be made to occur
without surgery then we might have a better solution to both diabetes
and obesity. Also these observation might be big clues to the cause of
both diabetes and obesity. It is worth having a look at.


No, it doesn't have to be "mysterious," it could be the diet, and/or
and lifestyle changes, and these are easily explainable by SCIENCE.

LC, to my knowledge, does not produce the rapid improvement in diabetes
control even before any weight is lost as does the surgery. LC also
doesn't cause drastic changes in hormone levels.


So that's the way I'm leaning until that "mystery" is solved.

See: Ockham's Razor.

How does Ockham's Razor apply? We do not have two or more competing
theories from which to choose the simplest. We have observations with
no theory, just hypotheses or hunches to look into.


They have noted a mysterious effect and are doing research
to figure out what is going on.

Yes, "Keep that funding rolling in, man, we'll get it one day! We
promise!

You claim that James and I are the ones with closed minds?

Besides just being stupid? Yes!

And here you imply that the medical research to find out what's
going on is a joke.

Yes, much of science is a joke. That's precisely my point!

Nutrition Science might be a joke but it is always worth while to
try to understand what is going on especially when the health of
many millions is in the balance.


Very good!

Now, if you'll just go back to school and get your GED...

But for gastric bypass surgery? Not so much.

A blatant lie. It's been demonstrated that these patients have
a very high rate of diabetes reversal.

Compared to what? Compared to a control group that received no
treatment, were not even put on a diet, etc? BFD.

True, it is an observation and not a trial but it is nevertheless
a compelling observation that cries out for further exploration
and testing.


It's just too damn "mysterious."

But they're still working on it!

{...]

But you're not just speaking out, you're taking this stuff far too
personally. It's almost as if you're obsessed with it.

If I'm obsessed, what about you?

I'm rebutting your silly and repetitious postings.

It's a "cause and effect" ("causality") thing.

Oh, I see. When I do that, it's because I have AIDS.

Yes, that's one possibility.

When you do it, it's perfectly cool. Interesting how fair you
are in evaluating things.

Look, little man, as long as you want to keep insulting me about what
I believe in, especially since what I believe in is based on The
Scientific Method, and not "mysterious" crap, I'm going to keep
responding in kind.

And if you don't like it? Good luck with that.

Look it up.

And the fact that you've dragged Muslims
and Al Sharpton into it shows where you're coming from.

I reserve the right to drag anyone and anything I want into it.

Feel free to continue to do so and win more respect....

Not that I need your permission, but...

[...]
THERE'S NOTHING MYSTERIOUS ABOUT THE WAY LOW-CARB DIETS WORK!

Who here has claimed that there was anything mysterious about LC?

That was a simple declarative sentence.

Which of course has nothing to do whatever, because the "mystery"
was not about LC diets. Geez...

From the Latin, it means "to make clear."

Which I always try to do, especially when I'm conversing with
simpletons.

But sometimes it doesn't work even then.

Sometimes there's just no there, there.

[...]
Also, from the diabetics
here over the years, it seems any reversal of diabetes does not
happen with days.

It certainly won't on a typical ADA-recommended diet.


There you go again. I said from the diabetics here, in this
newsgroup.
Yet you go off on the ADA diet.

Yes, because it's on the ADA diet that these people probably got
diabetes in the first place.

Which is essentially a HIGH-carb, low fat diet.

But a LOW-carb diet can reverse diabetes in "a matter of days," and
I've given you cites that prove it.

I have not seen it. Can you post a link?


I'm not arguing with Doug. I'm arguing with
you and it has nothing to do with the above. Capiche?

Doug has said pretty much the same thing, so you're arguing with him
whether you know it or not.

Please, don't drag Doug down into the personal rat-hole that you've
created.

Do you own license to Doug's name?

No?

I didn't think so.

So I'll drag Doug's name anywhere I want, thankyouverymuch.

Asshole.

On 6/4/2012 1:16 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
James Warren wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

Each of the popular plans has at least one point where it says to do
something not obvious. That's because the author(s) of that plan spent
a decade or more experimenting on how to improve past the point you'd
get doing the obvious. "Reduce total carbs. You'll lose." If that
were it there would be no need for the many books on the topic. Human
bodies are not that simple. We are not "calories in equals calories
out" mechanical engines.

Pick a plan and analyze it. You'll find items that are not obvious.
Try them anyways and you'll discover they work.

How was it discovered that they work? By anecdotes? By controlled studies?

Depending on the plan at least tabular data. Dr Atkins tried to get his
tabular data published and was refused because it was not double blind.
You have stated that you will accept nothing less than double blind
studies. As such I suspect you will call any amount of tabluar data
anecodotal.

A diet cannot be double blind using real food. Was the assignment to
diet random? This would be a minimum requirement for a controlled
trial.


It matters which.

To you. To others the quality of the data matters but the content of
the data matters as well. Is there any harm in "follow the directions"
where the directions are in a book that has sold millions and has been
in use for over a decade? To me the biggest downside would be "It
failed to work any better than the obvious".

Nope. I posted a link to a video doing exactly that for four diets.
However, assignment to diet was randomized. This would evaluate the
diet as a whole. Selling millions is not a good scientific criterion
for anything though.


What can be known is the non-obvious parts gave results successful
enough for an person to notice them and study the field long enough to
become established as an expert, publish a book, and for the book to
survive the culling process to become well known.

What are non-obvious parts? How was success defined? What does success
of a diet book have to do with anything. Many diet books have been
highly successful in selling copies and making money. Surely they
didn't all contain good advice, did they?


Compare the results
against people who only did the obvious and you'll find you did better.
Those non-obvious bits are the fruit of that decade plus of work each
other put in while developing their plan before they wrote their book.
Expertise matters when it comes to results.

Or don't because you're happy with the results of doing the obvious so
you don't care if there are optimizations available for having read one
of the plans.

My results were pretty good but not as good as I had hoped.

How much motivation do you have to acheive better results? Only you can
answer that. It tells how much motivation you have to try one of the
well known plans complete with the parts that are not obvious. Was your
success good enough that your hopes were unrealistic? That's extremely
common. Are you motivated enough to start trying the non-obvious parts?

It would be hard to get lower carb than I now do. I think I may have
asymptoted or have entered a phase of slow decline which is inevitable
eventually.

Dogman wrote:
" wrote:

I'm not arguing with Doug. I'm arguing with
you and it has nothing to do with the above. Capiche?
...
Doug appears to be smart enough to hedge his bet, by saying he would
try to avoid the risk factors noted by Duesberg.

You will note that I also follow the advice of others to avoid exposure
to HIV. Both sets of advice are good public health policy issues. The
fact that I follow good public health policy is not the same thing as
hedging my bets on the topic. I think it nearly certain that AIDS is
triggered by HIV infection. I think other illnesses with AIDS symptoms
are probably what is being observed. I avoid HIV infection for one of
those reasons. I follow good public heath policy for a lot more reasons
than the second one.

Asshole.

I review my kill file and ask myself if it is time to add Dogman to it.
At this point I could trade him for someone else and reduce the noise.
Then I check the total amount of traffic that would be left if I did
that. It's close. I ask that you read your own posts and decide to not
play the abuse game. Don't be a troll by reacting. It's a process that
gets worse and worse over time.

On 6/4/2012 1:27 PM, Doug Freyburger wrote:
James Warren wrote:

Compare the results
against people who only did the obvious and you'll find you did better.
Those non-obvious bits are the fruit of that decade plus of work each
other put in while developing their plan before they wrote their book.
Expertise matters when it comes to results.

Or don't because you're happy with the results of doing the obvious so
you don't care if there are optimizations available for having read one
of the plans.

My results were pretty good but not as good as I had hoped.

I will point out something else -

Following the directions more strictly does not equal staying strictly
lower in carbs or staying in the early phases. At most the directions
allow that to happen. Not the same thing as following the core of the
directions simply because it's allowed. Doing what's allowed is taking
an optional branch of the process not following the core of the
directions. Consider that nearly every plan out there has a starting
phase that lasts 2 weeks sometimes 1 week then moves on to the next
phase.

I don't know about allowed and not allowed. I am simply avoiding carbs.


Following the directions more strictly equals moving on to the next
phase on day 15. Doing low carb more strictly equals staying low
longer. Not the same thing. In this discussion I am recommending
following the directions more strictly to leverage the 10+ years of
effect by the author(s) of the book(s).

I year down, nine more to go.